Marsha Ramos gets intimidated–and the city sits in to make sure

It seems that everyone in town but the city council has been reading last week’s deposition of former Mayor Marsha Ramos. We don’t have all of it, but what we’ve seen so far shows the kind of desperate measures Burbank is relying upon to make sure that their people in the know don’t ever talk.

The first couple of pages reveals the pressure that Ramos was under not to spill the beans about any confidential information she might have regarding past cases of police discrimination. Notice how the city’s attorney keeps threatening her about what she can or cannot say. Then imagine what it must have been like to have had the police chief sitting in and watching her closely.

You can see that Ramos clearly wants to tell them everything she knows about these problems, but can’t:

Mr. Gresen (attorney for the plaintiffs): Okay. Now, during the last two years of your tenure as either– in the city council, whether you were mayor or whether you were not mayor– well, let me start within your entire term. Did you ever hear from anywhere while you were a member of the city council, whether you were mayor or not, that there were racial problems within the Burbank Police Department?

Ms. Hurevitz (for the city): Objection. There may be a violation of the Brown Act if she had information regarding personnel matters. They are maintained in strict confidentiality; and even though she may have had that information, she is not allowed by law to discuss it.

Mrs. Ramos: Could I ask a clarifying question?

Mr. Gresen: Sure

Mrs. Ramos: If it wasn’t disclosed to me in a confidential sessions or memo?

Gresen: Well, for the– the first question is if you heard of any racial problems within the Burbank Police Department during your tenure, did you hear of personnel matters, or were they of other matters? Because if they were non-personnel matters, then the objection would not apply.

Ramos: I guess, if I hear from an individual, is it a personnel matter?

Gresen: A personnel matter is defined by the code, and a personnel matter is — is essentially a matter for which — which would either disclose a sworn officer’s private information such as their home address, telephone number, et cetera or if it concerns a matter for which the officer’s being investigated, disciplined or a matter which is otherwise contained in an officer’s personnel file. That would — in my opinion, would not include just general non-specific information about situations that are going on that do not specify specific personnel, So.

Hurevitz: Go ahead. I’m sorry I didn’t mean to interrupt you.

Gresen: No, that’s fine.

Hurevitz : I just wanted to insert a second objection. Under the Brown Act, there also is confidentiality of any pending or prospective litigation to the extent that the counsel has been provided with information regarding situations that either had pending litigation or might lead to pending litigation. That also by law has to be maintained in confidentiality.

Gresen: I understand, but there — there’s no questions that Ms. Ramos’ tenure pre-dated any litigation in this section so–

Ramos: I don’t even know where we are now.

Gresen: Well, the question was, given the objections, did you have any knowledge of any problems within the BPD concerning racial issues or bias during your tenure as a city council member? And I don’t think a yes or no would violate any privilege.

Hurevitz: If you’d wait.

Ramos: I’m sorry, I didn’t know I was supposed to wait.

Ms. Hurevitz: That’s Okay. there may be objections, and let me state my objection. And your answer is on the record; so it is what it is. Objection that it also calls for hearsay in addition to the Brown Act violation.

Mr. Gresen: Okay. Without disclosing any specific personnel information, can you please tell me what information you were provided as a city council member with respect to any race-based problems within the department.

Hurevitz: Well I think that, Counsel, this question is over-broad as phrased and will call for information that would violate the Brown Act. It may be possible for you to rephrase that question, but I think the way it’s currently phrased would be a violation.

Gresen: Will you please read back the question, please.

(The pending question was asked)

Ramos: I can think of one specific incident, and I don’t think it’s one covered by the Brown Act because it was an open, anonymous– anonymous letter.

Gresen: Okay. Can you tell me about that open, anonymous letter? Well first, do you recall when you– when you first became aware of the open, anonymous letter?

Ramos: I believe it was in the Fall of 2009, that’s the best of my recollection.

Gresen: Well, it would have to be in the Fall of ’08, because–

Ramos: Oh, the fall of ’08, Fall of ’08.

Gresen: Okay

Ramos: Who knows?

Hurevitz: Can I– may I just get some clarification?

Gresen: Sure.

Hurevitz: What do you mean by “open, anonymous letter?”

Ramos: It was given to the city council. It was presented, and it wasn’t under a confidential letter. It was not discussed in closed session. It was a letter.

Hurevitz: Okay. Thank you.

Gresen: Did the counsel undertake any efforts to see that the matters in the letter were investigated?

Ramos: We were– well, that’s where it gets crazy. We were told that we were not to speak to anybody about the anonymous letter.

Gresen: Who told you that?

Ramos: The city attorney and I went nuts and almost hired my own attorney because, if there was anything, we weren’t even allowed to ask anybody.

Gresen: Okay. Were there any other matters that were brought to your attention in a non-confidential setting concerning racial problems which may have existed in the BPD?

Hurevitz: Objection. Calls for hearsay, Brown Act.

Ramos: That might be hearsay. Individual officers.

Gresen: Which individual officers did you speak with concerning race-based issues while you were a member of the city council?

Ramos: There was one officer several years ago that brought to my attention that they were leaving the department because they said, “It’s a community I love, the people I love.” But the culture within the department was something they had a hard time with, and they had accepted employment elsewhere.

Gresen: Okay. Do you recall who that was?

Ramos: Yes

Green: Who?

Ramos: Vee Jones.

Hurevitz: I’m sorry. First name?

Ramos: Vee Jones

Gresen: Did Officer Jones tell you what she meant by “culture in the department?”

Ramos: I asked her, “Is there — is it because there’s no room for promotion? Is that the problem?”

And she says, “Not in the department.” And she said something– she alluded but never said specifically, “It’s because I’m black.” She never said that or “because I’m female.” But– she said, “We’ll talk later,” But we never did.

Gresen: Other– did you ever take any further action with respect to your conversation with Vee Jones?

Ramos: I communicated to her– with her one other time, and it just happened to be a happenstance situation. We have a friend– a mutual friend. And she said, “I’ve contacted others about this.” And I have no idea what else she meant, and we went on. Since I wanted to stay away from all of that. I went on to continue in a conversation in a very friendly matter and assumed that she would do what she was going to do–

Gresen: Okay

Ramos –Or not.

Gresen: Or not. Going back to the anonymous letter, do you recall whether there were any complaints contained within the anonymous letter?

Ramos: There were lots of complaints that I recall. And because it was such a detailed letter, you know, as a member of the council, you get all kinds of letters. But because there were so many details in the letter, I assumed it had to be from someone on the inside.

Green: Do you recall any of the details?

Ramos: There were allegations of, I believe, discrimination and inappropriate treatment of officers. I believe there was allegations of force used by some officers against the public. I think I recall that certain officers were cited as using racial epithets, and that’ all I recall at this moment.

Yes, we have it on good authority that the former Chief of Police came down to observe Marsha Ramos during this deposition, which because he’s named in the lawsuit he has the perfect right to do — it would be rare for a party to be excluded from the taking of a deposition, although it does happen at times.

And we doubt that he appeared because of a hobby-type interest, or that he thought it’d be a fun way to spend the day. No, he was sent down by instruction to make sure that Ramos didn’t violate the state law that forbids elected officials from divulging any information they might have obtained through closed sessions under the Brown Act.

The relevant statute is right here, and it provides a handy tool for city staff to keep people in line:

54963. (a) A person may not disclose confidential information that has been acquired by being present in a closed session authorized by Section 54956.7, 54956.8, 54956.86, 54956.87, 54956.9, 54957, 54957.6, 54957.8, or 54957.10 to a person not entitled to receive it, unless the legislative body authorizes disclosure of that confidential information.
(b) For purposes of this section, “confidential information” means a communication made in a closed session that is specifically related to the basis for the legislative body of a local agency to meet lawfully in closed session under this chapter.
(c) Violation of this section may be addressed by the use of such remedies as are currently available by law, including, but not limited to:
(1) Injunctive relief to prevent the disclosure of confidential information prohibited by this section.
(2) Disciplinary action against an employee who has willfully disclosed confidential information in violation of this section.
(3) Referral of a member of a legislative body who has willfully disclosed confidential information in violation of this section to the grand jury.

There are good reasons for this rule, of course, because having people blab all the time would make mince-meat of any legitimate effort to hold confidential discussions. But it’s clearly coercive in its nature, and bad-faith folks like City Attorney Dennis Barlow bank on this fact every week– it’s what they’ve been trying to nail Dr. Gordon on forever.

There are some exceptions to the confidentiality rule. For one thing, the official has to have had a special training session to apprise them of the change in law. No doubt Burbank gets reminded of it every day.

And it only forbids discussion of closed-session materials, not all “confidential” matters that Ramos may have heard elsewhere, regardless of what Attorney Hurevitz claims. But three other exceptions might kick in with Ramos:

(e) A local agency may not take any action authorized by subdivision (c) against a person, nor shall it be deemed a violation of this section, for doing any of the following:
(1) Making a confidential inquiry or complaint to a district attorney or grand jury concerning a perceived violation of law, including disclosing facts to a district attorney or grand jury that are necessary to establish the illegality of an action taken by a legislative body of a local agency or the potential illegality of an action that has been the subject of deliberation at a closed session if that action were to be taken by a legislative body of a local agency.
(2) Expressing an opinion concerning the propriety or legality of actions taken by a legislative body of a local agency in closed session, including disclosure of the nature and extent of the illegal or potentially illegal action.
(3) Disclosing information acquired by being present in a closed session under this chapter that is not confidential information.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit disclosures under the whistleblower statutes contained in Section 1102.5 of the Labor Code or Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 53296) of Chapter 2 of this code.

Number two is especially interesting. If Ramos had (or does) play her cards right, she could frame any confidential exposure as being in the public interest, to question the “propriety” of the council or staff’s reaction to these privileged incidents. She could claim that, in her mind, the city was guilty of illegal behaviors by either act or omission, such as secretly ignoring problems or allowing their staff to discipline people unfairly or in retaliation for engaging in a protected activity.

Of course, that would require Ramos to have nerve enough to buck the system and expose herself to their wrath, which we know she lacks. She has always been the type to go along to get along, or whatever that expression is.

But exception number one is also a possibility. This would allow her to inform the FBI or other agency and spill the beans about past behaviors she felt were illegal or questionable. The other possibility would be to test and see if civil discovery provides an exemption to this Brown Act restriction. Right now the Courts are mixed on the issue of whether or not a deposition-taking allows a public official to reveal closed-session information.

If Ramos had done so right then and there, it would have been interesting to see if Barlow and Company had the balls to seek her conviction and drag her in front of the Grand Jury. And that brings us right back to why the Chief was visiting her on official business. It was his job to report back on what she was saying, as a preliminary to a prosecution. And she knew it.